Amphenol vs TE Connectivity
APH and TEL side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APH and TEL compare
Amphenol is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as TE Connectivity ($97.8B against $61.7B).
On earnings, TE Connectivity is cheaper: it trades at 20.8× trailing earnings, against 34.6× for Amphenol.
Amphenol grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (57.6% versus 16.5% for TE Connectivity).
Amphenol keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.0% compared with 15.6% at TE Connectivity.
Both pay dividends: Amphenol yields 0.63% and TE Connectivity 1.1%.
Amphenol scores higher on the StockData Score (24 against 14 for TE Connectivity), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | APH | TEL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $97.8B | $61.7B |
| Share price | $79.30 | $213.03 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.5% | −11.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 289% | 34.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 1.22 |
| Employees | 170K | 93K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 24 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.6× | 20.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | 5.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.4× (better) | 13.7× |
| P/FCF | 19.1× | 18.6× (better) |
| PEG | 1.16 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.2% | 5.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $131.09 | $191.01 |
| Margin of safety | 39.5% (better) | −11.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 16.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.8% (better) | 7.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.2% | 107% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.0% | 112% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.8% (better) | 36.1% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% (better) | 19.7% |
| Net margin | 18.0% (better) | 15.6% |
| FCF margin | 15.5% | 17.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 40.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 27.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.19 | 0.91 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.0× | 31.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 1.88 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.95 | 5.11 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.63% | 1.1% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 28.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 23.4% (better) | 7.7% |
| Buyback yield | 0.82% | 2.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 4.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 95.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.47% | 0.13% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$416M | −$52.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- APH stock overview
- APH income statement
- APH valuation and score
- TEL stock overview
- TEL income statement
- TEL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.